Abstract
In this study, vocational education teachers and research assistants learned how to use a new digital workbench through a guided or an unguided instructional approach. We investigated the influence of the two instructional approaches on different learning objectives. Results show that guided instruction led to significantly better performance on a structured learning objective (quantity of tasks fulfilled), better performance on a second structured learning objective (quality of the fulfilled tasks), and similar results to a more unstructured learning objective (explore the functionalities of the workbench). Furthermore, we found that participants in the guided condition reported less temporal stress and higher self-confidence to perform well on the given tasks. With regard to the attitudes toward the use of the workbench, the participants in the unguided group showed slightly more positive values, although the differences were not statistically significant. In conclusion, we found advantages for the guided instructional approach with worked-out examples when participants have to learn how to use a totally new digital workbench.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
ASPE is the acronym for assessment for professional exams. In this project, a digital workbench is used to support and facilitate the creation of examination tasks in vocational education and training and to set up a model of how final examinations should become more competence-based in the future.
References
Atkinson, R. K., & Renkl, A. (2007). Interactive example-based learning environments: using interactive elements to encourage effective processing of worked examples. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 375–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9055-2
Cheng, K.-H. (2017). Reading an augmented reality book: An exploration of learners’ cognitive load, motivation, and attitudes. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(4), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2820
Choi, H.-H., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2014). Effects of the physical environment on cognitive load and learning: towards a new model of cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 26(2), 225–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9262-6
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. https://www.ime.usp.br/~abe/lista/pdfn45sGokvRe.pdf
Grier, R. A. (2015). How high is high? A meta-analysis of NASA-TLX global workload scores. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 59(1), 1727–1731. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931215591373
Hart, S. G. (2006). NASA-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 50, 904–908.
Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. Advances in Psychology, 52, 139–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368
de Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38(2), 105–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9110-0
Kalyuga, S., & Singh, A.-M. (2015). Rethinking the boundaries of cognitive load theory in complex learning. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 831–852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9352-0
Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 307–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802212669
Kapur, M. (2016). Examining productive failure, productive success, unproductive failure, and unproductive success in learning. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 289–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1155457
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Koedinger, K. R., Corbett, A. T., & Perfetti, C. (2012). The knowledge-learning-instruction framework: Bridging the science-practice chasm to enhance robust student learning. Cognitive Science, 36(5), 757–798. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01245.x
Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681–718. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627366
Likourezos, V., & Kalyuga, S. (2017). Instruction-first and problem-solving-first approaches: Alternative pathways to learning complex tasks. Instructional Science, 45(2), 195–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9399-4
Newman, P. M., & DeCaro, M. S. (2019). Learning by exploring: How much guidance is optimal? Learning and Instruction, 62, 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.05.005
Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2020). Cognitive-load theory: Methods to manage working memory load in the learning of complex tasks. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(4), 394–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420922183
Sweller, J. (2020). Cognitive load theory and educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09701-3
Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.
Sweller, J., Kirschner, P. A., & Clark, R. E. (2007). Why minimally guided teaching techniques do not work: A reply to commentaries. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263426
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
Wittwer, J., & Renkl, A. (2010). How effective are instructional explanations in example-based learning? A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology Review, 22(4), 393–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9136-5
Acknowledgments
The authors thank all participants for taking part in the study. The ASPE project is funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, funding code: 21AP007AA.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Buchner, J., Vonarx, AC., Pfänder, P., Kerres, M. (2022). Learning How to Use a Digital Workbench: Guided or Explorative?. In: Ifenthaler, D., Isaías, P., Sampson, D.G. (eds) Orchestration of Learning Environments in the Digital World. Cognition and Exploratory Learning in the Digital Age. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90944-4_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90944-4_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-90943-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-90944-4
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)